Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:52 pmSuri wrote:Dutchy wrote: With Norwood able to recruit just two players from outside the club ‘s promotional zone due to penalties for breaching the salary cap, Ross said addressing the midfield was the priority.
FFS, we didn't breach the salary cap, we weren't even close to being over the salary cap.
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:05 pmSuri wrote:Harry the Horse wrote:Of course, Norwood HAD a recruiting ban on them for salary cap breaches but the inclusion of the Crows into the competition saw that ban relaxed, allowing them to replace Crows Luke Brown and Mitch Grigg who they were bargaining on playing a lot of football at The Parade next year.
Now, the money question: Which club changed its mind, giving the Crows the numbers they needed to enter said competition again?
The ban wasn't "relaxed". The ban from McGuiness' contract change is still in place, but they are allowed to replace the players they've lost to the Crows and Power. Same as every other club including West and Port - who actually did breach the salary cap
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:07 pmJK wrote:Suri wrote:Dutchy wrote: With Norwood able to recruit just two players from outside the club ‘s promotional zone due to penalties for breaching the salary cap, Ross said addressing the midfield was the priority.
FFS, we didn't breach the salary cap, we weren't even close to being over the salary cap.
Yes we did. Didn't exceed the cap, but we breached the policies in place.
.Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:09 pmSuri wrote:JK wrote:Suri wrote:Dutchy wrote: With Norwood able to recruit just two players from outside the club ‘s promotional zone due to penalties for breaching the salary cap, Ross said addressing the midfield was the priority.
FFS, we didn't breach the salary cap, we weren't even close to being over the salary cap.
Yes we did. Didn't exceed the cap, but we breached the policies in place.
Ok, I'll take that. But when anyone mentions "salary cap breach" everyone jumps straight to a club spending more money than they should have on player payments and dipsh!ts keep putting that on Norwood. As you can tell it really gives me the sh!ts since we didn't exceed the cap at all
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:13 pmheater31 wrote:Suri wrote:
Ok, I'll take that. But when anyone mentions "salary cap breach" everyone jumps straight to a club spending more money than they should have on player payments and dipsh!ts keep putting that on Norwood. As you can tell it really gives me the sh!ts since we didn't exceed the cap at all
But you broke the rules relating to the cap and deserve all crap flung in Norwood's direction IMO
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:16 pmJK wrote:heater31 wrote:Suri wrote:
Ok, I'll take that. But when anyone mentions "salary cap breach" everyone jumps straight to a club spending more money than they should have on player payments and dipsh!ts keep putting that on Norwood. As you can tell it really gives me the sh!ts since we didn't exceed the cap at all
But you broke the rules relating to the cap and deserve all crap flung in Norwood's direction IMO
Yep, a breach is a breach, so we have to wear that
. None of this "over the salary cap" stuff. 
.Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:26 pmSuri wrote:JK wrote:heater31 wrote:Suri wrote:
Ok, I'll take that. But when anyone mentions "salary cap breach" everyone jumps straight to a club spending more money than they should have on player payments and dipsh!ts keep putting that on Norwood. As you can tell it really gives me the sh!ts since we didn't exceed the cap at all
But you broke the rules relating to the cap and deserve all crap flung in Norwood's direction IMO
Yep, a breach is a breach, so we have to wear that
Agreed. Just make sure its the right crap that's being flung
But I guess winning back to back flags means people will find whatever they can to fling at us. Here's hoping for some more crap to be flung at us when we go 3 in a row
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:31 pm
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:40 pmSuri wrote:Harry the Horse wrote:Of course, Norwood HAD a recruiting ban on them for salary cap breaches but the inclusion of the Crows into the competition saw that ban relaxed, allowing them to replace Crows Luke Brown and Mitch Grigg who they were bargaining on playing a lot of football at The Parade next year.
Now, the money question: Which club changed its mind, giving the Crows the numbers they needed to enter said competition again?
The ban wasn't "relaxed". The ban from McGuiness' contract change is still in place, but they are allowed to replace the players they've lost to the Crows and Power. Same as every other club including West and Port - who actually did breach the salary cap
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:59 pm
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:01 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:06 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:13 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:49 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:09 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:22 pmPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:05 pm
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:52 pmSDK wrote:Norwood had no penalties lifted !
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:53 pm
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:02 pmSuri wrote:JK wrote:Suri wrote:Dutchy wrote: With Norwood able to recruit just two players from outside the club ‘s promotional zone due to penalties for breaching the salary cap, Ross said addressing the midfield was the priority.
FFS, we didn't breach the salary cap, we weren't even close to being over the salary cap.
Yes we did. Didn't exceed the cap, but we breached the policies in place.
Ok, I'll take that. But when anyone mentions "salary cap breach" everyone jumps straight to a club spending more money than they should have on player payments and dipsh!ts keep putting that on Norwood. As you can tell it really gives me the sh!ts since we didn't exceed the cap at all